The thought crosses my mind: as hilarious and unapologetic as The Onion may be, do we perhaps live in a time when people are so willing to completely give themselves over to hysteria and exaggeration that a site of this nature actually does people a disservice? Or am I just thinking about this too hard?

The Onion flagrantly demonstrates itself as a satire publication, repeatedly. If you can't figure out it's making a joke, I'm with Pastry; it's your own damned fault for being that dumb, and you believing The Onion is the least of your problems.

... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

PAstrychef wrote:To stop doing anything because some people are too stupid to understand it is to do nothing but make the whole world that much stupider. It's their own damn fault if they can't recognize satire.

I was thinking about the same thing. I don't think we should stop doing it either, since there will always be someone to misconstrue satire.On the flip side: when enough stupid people collaborate on the basis of misinformation... bad stuff happens.

People need to be exposed to as much sensationalist satire as possible so that more of them will be able to distinguish viable news facts from speculative opinion in the media. God knows Americans could use a bit of perspective when you consider Fox News is on their televisions. That shit makes me get sick into my own scorn.

'Science is the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition(!!!).' - Adam Smith

Jorpho wrote:The thought crosses my mind: as hilarious and unapologetic as The Onion may be, do we perhaps live in a time when people are so willing to completely give themselves over to hysteria and exaggeration that a site of this nature actually does people a disservice? Or am I just thinking about this too hard?

You know how China just banned movies depicting time travel because time travel isn't real?

Jorpho wrote:The thought crosses my mind: as hilarious and unapologetic as The Onion may be, do we perhaps live in a time when people are so willing to completely give themselves over to hysteria and exaggeration that a site of this nature actually does people a disservice? Or am I just thinking about this too hard?

You know how China just banned movies depicting time travel because time travel isn't real?

Jorpho wrote:The thought crosses my mind: as hilarious and unapologetic as The Onion may be, do we perhaps live in a time when people are so willing to completely give themselves over to hysteria and exaggeration that a site of this nature actually does people a disservice? Or am I just thinking about this too hard?

You know how China just banned movies depicting time travel because time travel isn't real?

How is this different?

That's an interesting question, apart from how maybe banning time travel movies does kind of make sense in the weird logic of China.

I think it comes down to the fact that time travel is a genuine impossibility, and if people with genuine political power start talking in earnest about fixing our problems with time travel, then we're all utterly screwed. But governments do engage in practices that can easily be construed as infringing on one's personal freedom, and corporations do engage in practices that can easily be construed as short-sighted and exploitive. And more importantly, the rhetoric is getting so justified these days that it seems people are much more willing to believe The Others are capable of perpetrating any manner of atrocity.

Jorpho wrote:The thought crosses my mind: as hilarious and unapologetic as The Onion may be, do we perhaps live in a time when people are so willing to completely give themselves over to hysteria and exaggeration that a site of this nature actually does people a disservice? Or am I just thinking about this too hard?

You know how China just banned movies depicting time travel because time travel isn't real?

How is this different?

That's an interesting question, apart from how maybe banning time travel movies does kind of make sense in the weird logic of China.

I think it comes down to the fact that time travel is a genuine impossibility, and if people with genuine political power start talking in earnest about fixing our problems with time travel, then we're all utterly screwed. But governments do engage in practices that can easily be construed as infringing on one's personal freedom, and corporations do engage in practices that can easily be construed as short-sighted and exploitive. And more importantly, the rhetoric is getting so justified these days that it seems people are much more willing to believe The Others are capable of perpetrating any manner of atrocity.

Does that make sense?

the point is that both instances (china banning time travel movies/people believing the onion) revolve around someone treating fiction/satire as reality.

anyone who wants to base their governmental policy around fictional possibilities (i.e. someone talking about seriously fixing the world with time travel) should probably be removed from office (if not society) just as much as anyone who points to an onion article as a real news outlet should be kicked in the <genital region of choice>

The Righteous Hand Of Retribution"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

Jorpho wrote:The thought crosses my mind: as hilarious and unapologetic as The Onion may be, do we perhaps live in a time when people are so willing to completely give themselves over to hysteria and exaggeration that a site of this nature actually does people a disservice? Or am I just thinking about this too hard?

You know how China just banned movies depicting time travel because time travel isn't real?

How is this different?

Any government that would ban speculative fiction is certainly a very literal-minded one, with an approach that would imply a commitment to objectivity we might applaud if we thought it held its internal media service to the same standards. But I don't see how the observation applies here. In fiction we might deny natural laws, causality, recorded history or basic good sense, but always for the purposes of the narrative. In satire we accentuate certain aspects of society in order to bring about a change in the individual's posturing: the point is always to align the values of the readership with that of the self-satisfied author. The superficial similarities are of course there, but, setting-aside that no one has yet proposed banning The Onion, there are pitfalls to satire that fiction simply doesn't need to negotiate which make them entirely different beasts.

A South Park rerun came on last night, "The Death Camp of Tolerance." Mr Garrison wants to be fired for his homosexuality so he can, in return, sue the school: but he finds that anyone who complains about his explicit, sexually-inappropriate behaviour is sent to a "Tolerance Camp", one depicted as the concentration camp from Schindler's List. Mr Garrison is instead invited to an award ceremony in the Museum of Tolerance, and in frustration he lectures on how PC-ism has come too far. Yep, I remembered why I don't watch South Park any more. The point is that creators Trey & Matt are able, through the show, to present a contrived counter-argument to their position and use it to fabricate the impression that a debate has been fought and won. "We're tolerant enough," we're being told, "And in trying to stamp out intolerance further we're being *wink* just like the Nazis."

The problem with satire that's more immediate to the concerns of this thread is that by its nature it presents a text that contradicts its own subtext: and to read the difference requires presumed knowledge. Da Ali G Show satirized a British youth culture which idolized African American urban culture, but in turn it encouraged even more youths to mimic the style (it's not so much that teens are just obnoxious idiots, but that reading subtext requires a capacity for the abstract which comes fairly late in human development - if ever [Google: Piaget Stages of Development]).

In isolation, an Onion article can appear to be a genuine news item because it mimics all the qualities we would expect to find in a genuine news item. We could call this attribute gullible stupidity, but impossibly-alarming news is fairly common in these Murdoch days. Especially when we consider that Onion articles are constructed so that the winks are added towards the end of the piece: the first few lines are often the most believable of the article, with the piece becoming more outrageous by the end. Most people - and you heard it here first - don't read the whole news article. And this is exactly what the Onion exploits: it wants the unexpected reader to become momentarily outraged until they realize, oh dear, they're being had. They deliberately construct this illusion, and that's why they bother to give fabricated quotes from real personalities ("Obama sez," etc.). We call this the power of language, and it's what allows phishers to imitate letters from banks to steal account details, and it's what you try to do when you write a cover letter for a job application. You can claim people must be stupid not to see through it, but I for one am not stupid and I've been fooled by people faked the talk. And going by the profitability of scams and cons, I know I'm not the only one.

To defy the OP, however, I don't think people today are especially more "willing to completely give themselves over to hysteria and exaggeration". I just think you're looking at fundamentally human psychology whereby we take shortcuts in our attempts to gain knowledge by listening to people who've done the leg work, but that such a tactic opens up a wide exploit. Some bullshit, not matter how incredible, is going to make it past our filters, because we've never looked into the matter personally.

I think satire works as a valid method with which to critique society, but always with the understanding that it threatens to be read on its text rather than its subtext because it is written in such a way as to make that an easy possibility. Further, by design it separates its readers into an in and an out-group, and the humour is at the expense of the out-group. The Onion is a Bad Thing already, that is, insofar as it tries to deliberately confuse anyone who isn't immediately sympathetic to the views of its editors.

Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I feel like you're probably an ocelot, and I feel like I want to eat you. Feeling is fun!

I think that the fact people still don't realise The Onion is satire is even more argument for having sites like it around. In fact, I think it's more damaging to have sites like that other one linked that make fun of people who believe the articles. Instead, I think the real trick is to show those people, politely, that they were reading a satire, and use that to educate them into paying better attention to their news sources - satirical or not. Which is probably near-on impossible, but it's a nice aspirational goal. Possibly the hardest part is making the connection "The Onion's articles are fake, but look real; it's possible to read the article in a way that helps you realise it's fake earlier on; perhaps you should read all your news like that, even if it's from a genuine news source, since maybe not everything in the article is completely on the level either".

DSenette wrote:just as much as anyone who points to an onion article as a real news outlet should be kicked in the <genital region of choice>

You see, there's no real solution there. Yes, maybe they should be kicked in the <genital region of choice>, just like Obama should have walked into Congress and bashed some heads together, and all the stupid people shouldn't be allowed to breed, and so on. But for now at least we live in a civilization where such things are frowned upon. If the people aren't going to learn, mightn't it be best to at least try to keep them from freaking out?

DSenette wrote:just as much as anyone who points to an onion article as a real news outlet should be kicked in the <genital region of choice>

You see, there's no real solution there. Yes, maybe they should be kicked in the <genital region of choice>, just like Obama should have walked into Congress and bashed some heads together, and all the stupid people shouldn't be allowed to breed, and so on. But for now at least we live in a civilization where such things are frowned upon. If the people aren't going to learn, mightn't it be best to at least try to keep them from freaking out?

If they aren't going to learn? Then maybe.

But they do learn. Not all of them, but some do.

Mighty Jalapeno wrote:

Tyndmyr wrote:

Роберт wrote:Sure, but at least they hit the intended target that time.

Well, if you shoot enough people, you're bound to get the right one eventually.

Deep_Thought wrote:What's the name of that 'law' about how for any given subject, there will be a person's views who are so extreme you can't tell if it's parody or not? Seems relevant, but I've forgotten it

DSenette wrote:just as much as anyone who points to an onion article as a real news outlet should be kicked in the <genital region of choice>

You see, there's no real solution there. Yes, maybe they should be kicked in the <genital region of choice>, just like Obama should have walked into Congress and bashed some heads together, and all the stupid people shouldn't be allowed to breed, and so on. But for now at least we live in a civilization where such things are frowned upon. If the people aren't going to learn, mightn't it be best to at least try to keep them from freaking out?

DSenette wrote:just as much as anyone who points to an onion article as a real news outlet should be kicked in the <genital region of choice>

You see, there's no real solution there. Yes, maybe they should be kicked in the <genital region of choice>, just like Obama should have walked into Congress and bashed some heads together, and all the stupid people shouldn't be allowed to breed, and so on. But for now at least we live in a civilization where such things are frowned upon. If the people aren't going to learn, mightn't it be best to at least try to keep them from freaking out?

Well, that aside, you do know, Jorpho, that biology doesn't work that way? Overwhelmingly, both stupid and intelligent people have children of average intelligence. Preventing "stupid" people from breeding doesn't mean less stupid people, it just means less people.

Unfortunately for humanity, I don't think the tendency to wish arbitrary violence on people is a trait that can be bred out either.

Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I feel like you're probably an ocelot, and I feel like I want to eat you. Feeling is fun!

DSenette wrote:just as much as anyone who points to an onion article as a real news outlet should be kicked in the <genital region of choice>

You see, there's no real solution there. Yes, maybe they should be kicked in the <genital region of choice>, just like Obama should have walked into Congress and bashed some heads together, and all the stupid people shouldn't be allowed to breed, and so on. But for now at least we live in a civilization where such things are frowned upon. If the people aren't going to learn, mightn't it be best to at least try to keep them from freaking out?

Well, that aside, you do know, Jorpho, that biology doesn't work that way? Overwhelmingly, both stupid and intelligent people have children of average intelligence. Preventing "stupid" people from breeding doesn't mean less stupid people, it just means less people.

Unfortunately for humanity, I don't think the tendency to wish arbitrary violence on people is a trait that can be bred out either.

Take Idiocracy. The premise of that film isn't that the ability to think critically is innate. By most scientific accounts, that's demonstrably incorrect. The premise is that intelligence is mostly instilled, and that "stupid people" tend to raise their spawn to be stupid. On a small scale, this is almost universally observable: smart, thoughtful kids come from smart, thoughtful parents. Does this justify genocide (apart from the obvious moral objections)? That doesn't really follow.

acablue wrote:Take Idiocracy. The premise of that film isn't that the ability to think critically is innate. By most scientific accounts, that's demonstrably incorrect. The premise is that intelligence is mostly instilled, and that "stupid people" tend to raise their spawn to be stupid. On a small scale, this is almost universally observable: smart, thoughtful kids come from smart, thoughtful parents. Does this justify genocide (apart from the obvious moral objections)? That doesn't really follow.

It's far from being that absolute. Thoughtful kids often do have thoughtful parents. But claiming that's true ignores the significant minority who act differently to their parents. I've met complete assholes who had nice parents, and vice versa. The apple doesn't often fall far from the tree, but sometimes it gets carried by the wind.

DSenette wrote:just as much as anyone who points to an onion article as a real news outlet should be kicked in the <genital region of choice>

You see, there's no real solution there. Yes, maybe they should be kicked in the <genital region of choice>, just like Obama should have walked into Congress and bashed some heads together, and all the stupid people shouldn't be allowed to breed, and so on. But for now at least we live in a civilization where such things are frowned upon. If the people aren't going to learn, mightn't it be best to at least try to keep them from freaking out?

the point is that the solution to "person is incapable of realizing BLATANT AND OBVIOUS satire" isn't "remove blatant and obvious satire". the onion does not hide their satirical nature, they're not even borderline on the satire vs. possibly real scale.

it's not quite the same as someone thinking that steven colbert is seriously interviewing them on his show. sometimes that's pretty subtle. the onion is never subtle.

so the proper response to someone responding to an article from the onion as if it's real news is to "kick them in the nuts"*.

*where "kick them in the nuts" means call them out for being morons in the most embarrassing way possible.

The Righteous Hand Of Retribution"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

DSenette wrote:just as much as anyone who points to an onion article as a real news outlet should be kicked in the <genital region of choice>

You see, there's no real solution there. Yes, maybe they should be kicked in the <genital region of choice>, just like Obama should have walked into Congress and bashed some heads together, and all the stupid people shouldn't be allowed to breed, and so on. But for now at least we live in a civilization where such things are frowned upon. If the people aren't going to learn, mightn't it be best to at least try to keep them from freaking out?

the point is that the solution to "person is incapable of realizing BLATANT AND OBVIOUS satire" isn't "remove blatant and obvious satire". the onion does not hide their satirical nature, they're not even borderline on the satire vs. possibly real scale.

it's not quite the same as someone thinking that steven colbert is seriously interviewing them on his show. sometimes that's pretty subtle. the onion is never subtle.

so the proper response to someone responding to an article from the onion as if it's real news is to "kick them in the nuts"*.

*where "kick them in the nuts" means call them out for being morons in the most embarrassing way possible.

Indeed, the fact that those people exist is the reason for the Onion's existence.

Mighty Jalapeno wrote:

Tyndmyr wrote:

Роберт wrote:Sure, but at least they hit the intended target that time.

Well, if you shoot enough people, you're bound to get the right one eventually.

Well, not really: The Onion is written for the people who appreciate its satire. That is, the people who already hold those views the editors wish to propagate. That's the reason for its existence, to appeal to that audience.

Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I feel like you're probably an ocelot, and I feel like I want to eat you. Feeling is fun!

Pez Dispens3r wrote:Well, not really: The Onion is written for the people who appreciate its satire. That is, the people who already hold those views the editors wish to propagate. That's the reason for its existence, to appeal to that audience.

indeed, that's how they get advertising

The Righteous Hand Of Retribution"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

DSenette wrote:*where "kick them in the nuts" means call them out for being morons in the most embarrassing way possible.

I suppose what I really want is some assurance that this is still possible: that not only do people exist to call them out for being morons, but that they will be properly and thoroughly embarrassed afterwards.

Jorpho wrote:that not only do people exist to call them out for being morons, but that they will be properly and thoroughly embarrassed afterwards.

Yeah, I know how you feel. Embarrassment and shame seem to be slowly evaporating from society, but I'm sure if you pick through Plato and Pliny with a fine-tooth comb they were probably saying the same thing 2000 years ago.

Jorpho wrote:If you wanted to point someone at some part of The Onion website itself that stated that The Onion was a parody, where on the website would that be? I cannot find it.

Scroll to the bottom of the main page, click "media kit" in small, gray letter at the bottom and it states it clearly there.

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

Even without The Onion, there will still be folks jamming your inbox with every mindless forward they can find from 'Incredible True Facts' to 'Oh me yarm! This is Unacceptable!' rant that ignores every fact in the matter. People will still link to videos on YouTube because "he said he's a doctor and you can't lie on the internet." Those are far worse in the long run. At least with The Onion, it's easy to point out that the stories aren't real and calmly explain how The Onion works. Explaining to people that the Internet isn't some omnipotent and omniscient God-like super-being able to weed out bad content and vaporize it before it reaches your inbox and keep it from YouTube seems to be a lot harder.

"The Universe is for raptors now!" say Raptors, as they take over all of Universe.

Jorpho wrote:The thought crosses my mind: as hilarious and unapologetic as The Onion may be, do we perhaps live in a time when people are so willing to completely give themselves over to hysteria and exaggeration that a site of this nature actually does people a disservice? Or am I just thinking about this too hard?

You know how China just banned movies depicting time travel because time travel isn't real?

How is this different?

That's an interesting question, apart from how maybe banning time travel movies does kind of make sense in the weird logic of China.

I think it comes down to the fact that time travel is a genuine impossibility, and if people with genuine political power start talking in earnest about fixing our problems with time travel, then we're all utterly screwed. But governments do engage in practices that can easily be construed as infringing on one's personal freedom, and corporations do engage in practices that can easily be construed as short-sighted and exploitive. And more importantly, the rhetoric is getting so justified these days that it seems people are much more willing to believe The Others are capable of perpetrating any manner of atrocity.

Does that make sense?

the point is that both instances (china banning time travel movies/people believing the onion) revolve around someone treating fiction/satire as reality.

Hopefully this doesn't go too far OT, but I'm pretty confident that the CCP banned time travel movies because of the popularity of shows representing feudal China (or other pre-Marxist societies) in a pretty positive light. They restrict reality TV because it promotes consumerism, and they ban time travel stories because they promote nostalgia. Both sentiments are fundamentally anti-communist and represent challenges to the Maoist interpretation of history.

I mean, China's making money hand over fist, but they are still officially communist and they do care about appearances.